L’Encyclopédie de l’histoire du Québec / The Quebec History Encyclopedia

Political
History of Canada

[This
text was written in 1948. For the full citation, see the end of the
text.]

Political
history in Canada , as distinct from constitutional history, may be
described as the history of political parties. In a sense, there have
been political parties in Canada ever since, in 1608, some of Champlain's men plotted to murder him, and hand over the newly founded settlement of Quebec to the Basques. At a later date, there was a widespread division of opinion in New France between those who supported Frontenac's attitude toward the use of firewater among the Indians and those who supported Laval's opposition to it; and in the early days of British rule in Canada
there was a violent cleavage between those who wished to see French
laws and institutions continued in Canada and those who wished to see
English laws and institutions introduced. But it was not until the establishment
of representative institutions (an event which took place in Nova Scotia
in 1758, in New Brunswick in 1784, and in [Upper and Lower] Canada in
1791) that organized political parties began to make their appearance
in what is now Canada . The character of the old colonial constitution,
with its concentration of power in the hands of the governing class,
was such that there sprang up at an early date an organized opposition
to the government party. Signs of opposition to the government and its
supporters were apparent in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick long before
1800, and in Upper and Lower Canada shortly after that date. The name
by which the opposition party came to be known was that of " Reformers
"; though in Lower Canada at a later date, because of the racial
twist given to the political struggle, they came to be known as "Anti-bureaucrates"
or " Patriotes
". At various times, the Reformers obtained a majority in the
Legislative Assemblies of the various provinces of British North America
, and in such cases they were able to elect the speaker of the Assembly
¾
a fact which predicated a certain amount of organization. On the other
hand, when the " Tories
," or government party, had control of the Assembly, they put
a nominee of their own in the speaker's chair.

The
Reform and Tory Parties.

In
these far-off struggles is to be found the origin of the Liberal and
Conservative parties of today. It is true that liberalism and conservatism
correspond to two tendencies in human nature. One is a tendency toward
change and reform; the other is a tendency toward acceptance of things
as they are. Some men are naturally inclined to attempt to make things
better, and these are commonly described as Reformers or Liberals; others
like to let sleeping dogs lie, and these are described as Tories or
Conservatives. But one cannot speak of a political party until that
party has attained some degree of organization; and it was only during
the struggles that preceded the Rebellion
of 1837 that the Reform or Liberal party in Canada may be said to have taken shape.

During
this period, the organization of both the Reform and Tory parties was
extremely loose. Each party had its own newspapers, and there were no
doubt temporary party organizations in various constituencies; but there
were no province-wide political associations, and there was little party
discipline, except that of course exercised by Government House. These
early parties, moreover, tended constantly to break up into smaller
groups. In 1837, for example, the Reform party broke up into those who
favoured rebellion, and those who did not; and even among the Tories
there were those who favoured ruthless repression, and those who did
not. Even when the Reformers, having finally attained power in 1848,
were able, with Lord
Elgin's support, to bring into operation Lord
Durham's panacea of responsible
government , they proceeded to break up into warring factions over
such matters as the clergy reserves and the seigniorial tenure, in such
a way that Robert
Baldwin , the leading Canadian exponent of responsible government, retired into private life in disgust in 1851. A reconstruction of the government took place under Francis
Hincksand A.
N. Morin ; but this government lasted for only three years, and the situation then created gave rise to the organization of the two great parties that have dominated Canadian politics since that time.

The
Origin of the Liberal-Conservative Party.

There
were in the Canadian legislature in 1854 no fewer than seven distinct
political groups. Four of these were from Upper Canada . The first was
the remnant of the Family
Compact, or high Tory party, and was led by Sir
Allan MacNab . The second was the moderate Conservative party, led by John
A. Macdonald . The third was the party known as the "Baldwin
Reformers", moderate Liberals who had been followers of Robert
Baldwin. Lastly, there was a small, but growing, Radical or advanced
Liberal party, commonly known as the "Clear
Grits". This group had no one leader, but George
Brown was beginning to assume in it a commanding position. In Lower Canada , there were three groups or parties. First, there was the "
parti
bleu ", comprising the majority of the French Canadians.
This party had been led by Louis
H. LaFontaine , the colleague of Robert Baldwin, and had been nominally Liberal; but the French Canadians are an essentially conservative people, and the Liberalism of this group was more nominal than real. Second, there was a small party known as the " parti
rouge ", composed of real French-Canadian Liberals, some
of whom had radical or republican leanings. Lastly, there was the English-speaking
minority in Lower Canada, composed of representatives of the English-speaking
population of the Eastern
Townships and Montreal .

When
the Hincks-Morin administration resigned, the governor-general called
upon Sir Allan MacNab to form a government. MacNab's immediate followers,
however, numbered only a handful; and he therefore applied to Macdonald
to aid him in forming a cabinet. Macdonald took the view that the bounds
of the Conservative party should be enlarged "so as to embrace
every person desirous of being counted as a progressive Conservative".
He had little difficulty in persuading the Baldwin Reformers to support
a progressive Conservative administration, since their views did not
differ widely from those of the moderate Conservatives; but he found
it more difficult to win over the majority of the French Canadians.
It was not easy for the sometime rebels of '37 to join hands with English-speaking
Tories. But Macdonald, with his adroitness in the management of men,
had cultivated cordial relations with the French Canadians so successfully,
and the natural instincts of the majority of the French Canadians were
so essentially conservative, that he was able, in the end, to obtain
their support. There was thus brought about between Macdonald and the
majority of the French Canadians a working alliance which lasted until
Macdonald's death, and was indeed the corner-stone of his success. He
succeeded also in obtaining the general support of the English minority
in Lower Canada ; and to the party thus formed, of diverse elements,
he gave the name of the Liberal-Conservative party. This is the name
by which the so-called Conservative party in Canada is still known.
The groups left in opposition ¾
the "Clear Grits" and the parti
rouge ¾
were, on the other hand, the nucleus from which has developed the Liberal
party in Canada to-day. Thus the two historic parties in Canadian politics
had their origin.

The
Liberal-Conservative party dominated the Canadian legislature, with
one brief interruption of four days, until 1862; but the Liberals made
great progress during these years, especially in Upper Canada , with
the result that after 1862 government came to a deadlock. The two parties
were so evenly divided, and the two parts of the province were so bitterly
arrayed against each other, that in 1864 a crisis was reached. In order
to find a way out of the deadlock, George Brown, the leader of the Liberals,
and John
A. Macdonald , the leader of the Conservatives, though bitter personal
enemies, were persuaded to form a coalition government. This coalition
had the support of all but the parti rouge and a wing of the
"Clear Grit" party, and it successfully earned through the
great project of Confederation.
George Brown, it is true, withdrew from the government in 1865;
but a number of his Liberal colleagues declined to follow him, and the
Great Coalition, as it was called, remained in existence until Confederation
was completed in 1867.

Parties
in the New Dominion
.

The
task of forming the first government of the Dominion of Canada in 1867
was entrusted by Lord
Monck , the governor-general, to John A. (or, as he now became,
Sir John) Macdonald. Macdonald realized that the first years of the
new Dominion would be a critical period. "Confederation,"
he said, "is only yet in the gristle, and it will require five
years more before it hardens into bone." He was therefore anxious
that the government which presided over the infancy of the Dominion
should be, like that which presided over its birth, a coalition. He
even went the length of decrying the evils of partyism. "Party,"
he quoted, "is merely a struggle for office, the madness of many
for the gain of a few." In his first cabinet, he included an almost
equal number of Liberals and Conservatives; and he made a genuine attempt
to form a nonparty government. In this attempt, however, he did not
succeed. George Brown set up the standard of opposition; and at a convention
held in Toronto in 1868 he succeeded in carrying the majority of the
Liberal or "Clear Grit" party with him. In Quebec , the parti
rouge remained in opposition; and thus the Liberal party survived
what was regarded as Macdonald's attempt to wreck it. Gradually, the
Liberal members of Macdonald's cabinet retired; the great majority of
those Liberals who had supported the Great Coalition reverted to their
former allegiance; and by 1872 the government had become essentially
a Conservative administration. The system of party government had re-asserted
itself.

The
climax came in 1873. In 1872 there was a general election. In this election
the Macdonald government was supported at the polls; but, unfortunately,
Macdonald was so indiscreet, during the election, as to solicit campaign
funds from Sir
Hugh Allan , to whom had been granted the contract for building
the Canadian
Pacific Railway . The revelation of this fact in 1873 created a
sensation in the country, since it carried with it the suggestion that
Macdonald had sold the charter for the building of the railway in return
for large contributions to the Liberal-Conservative campaign funds.
It is probable that this charge was baseless. The Liberals would seem
to have confused post hoc with propter hoc . But the
incident created a painful impression on the public mind; and it came
to be known as the " Pacific
Scandal ." Despite Macdonald's protestation that "These
hands are clean", the House failed to support him, and in 1873,
without waiting for a vote, Macdonald resigned.

The
Mackenzie Government.

The
" Grits
", as the Liberals had by this time come to be known, now had
their opportunity. The governor-general sent for Alexander
Mackenzie , one of the Liberal leaders; and Mackenzie formed in
1873 a Liberal government. In 1874 a new general election was held,
and in this the Liberal-Conservative party suffered a disastrous defeat.
Macdonald came back to the House with a group of only forty-five supporters;
and there were those who regarded him as a ruined and discredited politician.
He himself wished to make way for a younger leader; but the "Old
Guard", as he called his handful of supporters, would not hear
of his resignation, and he therefore decided to bide his time. He did
not have long to wait. The new government was honest and economical;
but Mackenzie, the new prime minister though a man of integrity and
ability, was not the politician that Macdonald was. He was so honest
and so economical that he offended many of his own supporters. "Give
the Grits rope enough," Macdonald had said, "and they will
hang themselves"; and his prophecy proved to be true. In addition
to this, the years during which the Mackenzie government were in power
proved to be years of severe depression. The result was that when, in
1878, another general election fell due, the Mackenzie government was
swept from power by an avalanche of votes hardly less spectacular than
that which had carried it to power in 1873.

The
issue on which the election of 1878 was fought was that of protection.
The depression had given rise to a demand for the protection of Canadian
industries by tariff barriers; and this had been stimulated by the campaign
of the "Canada
First" party [alternative
site ]. Macdonald was at heart a free trader; but when Mackenzie,
who was a bigoted free trader, came out in opposition to higher tariffs,
Macdonald, with that frank opportunism which distinguished him, adopted
the policy of protection. "Protection," he rather cynically
told his friend Goldwin
Smith , "has done so much for me that I feel I must do something
for protection." He re-named protection the " National
Policy ", on the ground that it was calculated to build up
Canada as a nation; and the "N.P." (as the National Policy
was called for short) brought him back to office. Thus, after five years,
the discredited politician of "Pacific Scandal" fame turned
the tables on his opponents, and restored to power the Liberal-­Conservative
party.

The
Last Years of Macdonald.

The
lease of power which Macdonald obtained in 1878 lasted until his death
in 1891. During this period, there were three general
elections - in 1882, in 1887, and again
just before Macdonald's death, in 1891. In all three the Liberal-Conservative
party was triumphant, not by the majorities of 1878, but by majorities
that, though shrunken, were adequate. During these years, the Liberals
strove to find a battle-cry that would drive the Conservatives from
power. In 1882, they directed their attack chiefly against the government's
policy in building the Canadian Pacific Railway; and Edward
Blake , the Liberal leader who succeeded Alexander Mackenzie, prophesied
that the Canadian Pacific "would not pay for its axle-grease."
In 1887, they attacked chiefly the policy of the government in regard
to the North-West
Rebellion of 1885, and particularly in regard to the execution
of Louis
Riel . In 1891, the chief plank in their platform was an attack
on the National
Policy , which had not produced all the results prophesied from
it, and the advocacy of "unrestricted reciprocity" with the
United States. In truth, the Macdonald government during these years
gave the opposition plenty of grounds for attack. The "gerrymander"
of 1882 and the Franchise bill of 1885 were examples of Macdonald's
statecraft at its worst, loading the dice as they did against his opponents;
and the situation which led to the North-West
Rebellion of 1885 was undoubtedly mishandled by the government.
The North-West Rebellion and the execution of Riel
, moreover, drove a wedge between the French and English sections
of the Liberal-Conservative party, laying the basis of the strength
which the Liberal party has since that time enjoyed in the province
of Quebec; and the controversy over the Jesuits'
Estates Act disrupted the Conservative party in Ontario, so that
thirteen of Macdonald's supporters ­ "the noble thirteen",
as they were called - bolted from the government
on this issue. But the Liberals were handicapped by their leaders. Edward
Blake , who succeeded Alexander Mackenzie in the leadership of the
Liberal party in 1880 was a statesman, but no politician; and while
Wilfrid
Laurier , who succeeded him in 1887 was both a statesman and a politician,
he had no chance before 1891 of commending himself to the English-speaking
provinces. On the other hand, Macdonald, who was a politician first
and a statesman afterwards, had an advantage in appealing to the electors
which neither of his opponents had. The election of 1891 was virtually
won on the Liberal-Conservative slogan, "The old man, the old flag,
and the old policy", and on Macdonald's famous pronouncement, "A
British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost
effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the 'veiled treason' which
attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from
their allegiance."

Abbott,
Thompson, Bowell, and Tupper .

The
death of Macdonald in 1891 was a disaster for the Liberal-Conservative
party. He left behind him no one who could bend the bow of Ulysses.
The chief candidates for the prime ministry were Sir
John Thompson and Mackenzie
Bowell ; but Thompson, who was a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism,
was not acceptable to the Orangemen of Ontario, whereas Bowell, who
was grand master of the Orange
Association , was not acceptable to the French-Canadian Roman Catholics
of Quebec. In these circumstances, Sir
John Abbott , who had the merit of being acceptable to both wing
of the party, but who was already three score years and ten, was thrust
into the gap as a compromise. Abbott succeeded in allaying the party
dissensions; and when he resigned in 1892, after nearly eighteen months
of office, Sir John Thompson was able to succeed him. Thompson, a very
able man, might have done something to restore the declining fortunes
of the party, but he died suddenly in 1894. His place was taken by Mackenzie
Bowell; but Bowell proved unable to compose the differences between
the warring factions even in the cabinet; and in 1896, after seven of
the ministers had "bolted" in a body from the cabinet, he
was forced to make way for Sir
Charles Tupper , who had been brought back from England in a last
attempt to revive the party's fortunes. But Tupper, who had to appeal
to the country after a brief three months' tenure of power, went down
to a disastrous defeat; and with his resignation the eighteen years
of Liberal-Conservative rule came to an end.

The issue on which the election of 1896 was
fought was the question
of separate Roman Catholic schools in Manitoba . For many years the
French-speaking Roman Catholics of Manitoba, descended from the engagés
of the fur-trade, had enjoyed the privilege of separate schools,
under Roman Catholic auspices; and when these were abolished in 1890 by
the legislature of Manitoba, there sprang up a demand among the French,
both of Manitoba and of Quebec, that the Dominion parliament should compel
Manitoba to restore separate schools. The question had been one of the
most difficult with which the successive Liberal-Conservative governments
at Ottawa had had to deal, for the Liberal-Conservative party relied for
its support not only on the Orangemen of Ontario, but also on the bleus
of Quebec. For this reason, Tupper decided in 1896 to bring in "remedial
legislation" to compel Manitoba to restore separate schools [the
author is factually incorrect on this point. The Remedial bill was introduced
in the House of Commons on February 11, 1896 under the administration
of Mackenzie Bowell; as for Charles Tupper, he was only appointed Prime
Minister of Canada on April 27, 1896. See the Chronology
on the Manitoba School Question ]. On this issue he went to the country.
Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of the Liberal party, was in a difficult position.
He was a French-Canadian and a Roman Catholic, and it was not easy for
him to oppose the restoration of French Canadian Roman Catholic schools
in Manitoba. But he took refuge in the traditional Liberal doctrine of
provincial rights; and he maintained that the province of Manitoba should
be left free to regulate its own affairs, without interference from the
Dominion parliament [as will be gathered from this
document , the position of Laurier during the elections of 1896 was
far more nuanced, and ambiguous, than stated here.]. This proved a wise
decision. The province of Quebec, facing its first opportunity to elect
a French-Canadian prime minister, voted for Laurier against the bishops;
the English-speaking provinces gave him widespread support; and only Manitoba,
by a curious freak of politics, voted for its own coercion [The Conservatives
won the popular vote in all provinces except in P.E.I., Quebec, British
Columbia and the North-West Territories. While it is true that Laurier
did well enough in the anglophone provinces of Canada,
it should be noted that he won 69 seats outside of Quebec while his Conservative
opponent gained 72. Overall, he owed his overwhelming political victory
primarily to the considerable support he received from Quebec. ].

The
Laurier Régime.

The
tenure of power on which Laurier
entered in 1896 lasted for fifteen years ¾
a longer continuous period of office than
had been enjoyed even by Sir John
Macdonald . In 1900, in 1904, and in 1908 Laurier appealed to the
country, and the Liberal party was returned to power with large majorities.
For this there were several causes. In the first place, Laurier surrounded
himself in 1896 with a strong cabinet, not inaptly described as a "ministry
of all the talents"; and though he discarded with ruthlessness
those ministers who crossed his will, his cabinets were always composed
of first-rate men. In the second place, Canada entered, shortly after
his accession to office, on a period of unprecedented prosperity. For
this the government was in some measure responsible. It was not responsible
for the gold-rush
to the Klondike in 1898-9, or for the exploits of Canadian troops
on the battlefields
of South Africa , both of which to some extent focussed [sic] the
eyes of the world on Canada for perhaps the first time; but it was responsible
for the vigorous immigration policy which, under the guidance of Sir
Clifford Sifton filled up the vacant spaces of the Canadian
west, and it was responsible for the policy of railway expansion which,
though it proved in the long run a fatal mistake, brought into Canada
a flow of capital that contributed in large measure to the wave of prosperity
that swept over the country in the first years of the twentieth century.
"The nineteenth century was the century of the United States ;
the twentieth century will be the century of Canada ," exclaimed
Laurier, in his eloquent way; and his optimism was reflected in the
country at large. There is no doubt, moreover, that Laurier's nationalism
commended itself to the majority of the Canadian people. He conceived
of the British Empire as "a galaxy of free nations"; and he
advanced Canada several stages along the road to nationhood. Under him,
Canada assumed the full responsibility for her own defence, both military
and naval, internal and external; he asserted the right of Canada to
regulate British immigration; and he obtained from the Mother Country
an assurance that no imperial treaty should be binding on Canada , without
Canada 's express consent. In the domestic sphere, his nationalism was
a benign influence binding together the French and the English; and
it was noteworthy that during his régime there were none of those
clashes between the two races in Canada which have defaced other pages
of Canadian history.

During
the Laurier régime, the Liberal-Conservative party had an uphill
fight. From 1896 to 1901 the party was led by Sir Charles Tupper; but
in 1900 the party went down to an even more disastrous defeat than in
1896, and in 1901 Tupper, already a man of eighty years of age, resigned
the leadership of the party. He was succeeded by R. L. (later Sir Robert)
Borden, a man of ability and integrity who lacked, however, the magnetism
of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Laurier, with his picturesque appearance, his
silver tongue, and his old-world manners, captivated both French and
English electors; and Borden, who was neither picturesque, nor silver-tongued,
nor particularly old-world, seemed a rather drab person beside him.
On at least two occasions, there were cabals in the Conservative party
against Borden's leadership; and it was only gradually that his really
great qualities of patience, fairness, and determination came to be
appreciated.

The
Laurier government gave to the opposition, of course, during its long
tenure of office, various grounds for attack. Its hesitation over sending
a Canadian contingent to South Africa, its dismissal of Lord Dundonald,
the general officer commanding the forces in Canada, its establishment
of separate schools in Alberta and Saskatchewan, its weak handling of
the railway problem, and its establishment of a Canadian "tin-pot
navy" ¾
all were targets of attack by the Liberal-Conservative opposition. These
attacks, however, gave Laurier little concern compared with a revolt
against his leadership in the province of Quebec . In 1899 one of his
most brilliant supporters, Henri
Bourassa , a grandson of Louis-Joseph
Papineau , had broken with him, and inaugurated a nationalist
movement in the province of Quebec; and when, in 1910, Laurier's
old constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska returned to parliament a Nationalist
candidate, it began to look as though Bourassa was destined to
replace Laurier as the " favourite
son " of the habitant.

In
these circumstances, it became clear that some spectacular appeal to
the electorate would be necessary if the government were to survive
another election. By what seemed singular good fortune, the Laurier
government were able in 1911 to negotiate with the government of the
United States an agreement for reciprocity in natural products. Reciprocity
in trade between Canada and the United States had often been advocated;
and between 1855 and 1866 a reciprocity treaty had actually been in
force, and had been of much benefit to Canada . But this treaty had
been abrogated by the United States ; and since 1866 the United States
had rejected all proposals for its renewal. The reciprocity agreement
of 1911 seemed, therefore, a feather in Laurier's cap. But in the years
since 1866 Canada had become a continent-wide federation, had adopted
the National
Policy , and had built up interprovincial trade. The Liberal-Conservative
party took the view that to wipe out the tariff barriers between Canada
and the United States, and to encourage trade to flow north and south
instead of east and west, would be to undo a large part of the result
effected by Confederation, by the National Policy, and by the transcontinental
railways. The election, which was virtually fought on the issue of reciprocity
in trade [but in Quebec more on the issue of the creation of a navy],
was one of exceptional bitterness. The opposition raised against the
Liberals the cry of disloyalty ¾
the cry which, in a country settled by the
United
Empire Loyalists , had on more than one occasion been employed with
deadly effect against the Liberal party. They argued that reciprocity
was the precursor of commercial, and possibly political, union with
the United States ; and it was unfortunate that some prominent people
in the United States used language which seemed to lend colour to this
view. The president of the United States , for instance, described Canada
as being "at, the parting of the ways". The result was the
defeat of the Laurier government by the combined forces of the Liberal-Conservative
and Quebec Nationalist forces - a combination
which was, not without justice, described as an "unholy alliance."

The
Borden Government .

The
task of forming a new government was entrusted in 1911 to R.
L. (or, as he soon became, Sir Robert) Borden . He included in his
cabinet two or three Quebec Nationalists; but these proved to be uneasy
bed-fellows, and soon disappeared from the government. The cabinet was
predominantly Liberal-Conservative; and as such followed the traditional
policies of this party. The first major question that faced it was that
of naval defence. Long before the Great War broke out in 1914, the shadow
of war hung over Canadian politics. The menace of German aggression
was too apparent to be ignored. Borden had been elected as a peace minister;
but, like the younger Pitt, he was compelled to become a war minister.
He came to the conclusion that an emergency existed, and he decided
that Canada should make a direct contribution of three dreadnoughts
to the British navy, if only for the purpose of making a gesture. He
did not discard the policy of building up a Canadian navy; but he decided
that something more was necessary, if Canada was to signify her allegiance
to the British Empire . Unfortunately, as everyone must now admit, the
Liberals chose to oppose this proposal. Laurier denied that any emergency
existed. " England ," he said, "is in no danger, whether
imminent or prospective." By means of the closure [forcing an end
to debate in the House of Commons], the bill for the building of the
dreadnoughts was forced through the Canadian House of Commons; but in
the Senate, which was still dominated by a Liberal majority, it was
voted down.

When
the Great
War broke out in 1914, therefore, the Liberal party in Canada was,
from a party point of view, in a bad position. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
quite properly, proclaimed a party truce; and he made what amends he
could for his attitude in 1912 by throwing his support solidly behind
the war effort
of the government. It might have been well at this stage if Borden
had invited Laurier to join with him in forming a national or coalition
government; but the opportunity was missed. Gradually, the mistakes
of the government in the prosecution of the war roused criticism among
Liberals, and even among Conservatives. When patronage governed almost
exclusively the contracts for war supplies, it was difficult for loyal
Liberals to remain silent. But the crisis did not come until 1917, when
Sir Robert Borden made up his mind that, in view of the falling off
in voluntary enlistments, compulsory military service must be enacted.
To this Laurier was unwilling to agree; and the truce to party warfare
thereupon came to an end. Borden was able to secure the support of a
large number of Liberals from the English-speaking provinces in his
programme
of compulsory military service ; and he formed a unionist or coalition
government which contained a large proportion of Liberals. This government
appealed to the coun­try on December 17, 1917; and it was returned
by a majority of nearly two to one. It had a majority in every province
except Quebec; but there the Liberal opposition captured 62 seats, against
3 seats held by the government. This produced a most unfortunate cleavage
between Quebec and the rest of the Dominion which has profoundly influenced
Canadian political history since that time.

The
government formed in 1917, and the Unionist party that supported it,
had a record probably superior to that of any government in Canada before
or since that time. It carried to a successful conclusion Canada's
war effort ; and in doing so it gave an admirable example of the
pure and patriotic administration of public affairs. Patronage
was thus for the time being completely abolished in the civil service
and in the purchase of war supplies; the Military
Service Act was administered with fairness and impartiality; and
the demobilization of the Canadian army was carried through at the end
of the war with astonishing smoothness. It seems natural to expect that
the government which had faced so successfully the problems of the war
should continue to deal with the problems of reconstruction after the
war. But once the war was over, party spirit began to reassert itself.
A wing of the Conservative party began to demand a return to straight
Conservative rule; and, at the same time, defections began to occur
among the Liberal Unionists. Many Liberals who had supported the Unionist
government in 1917 reverted at the end of the war to their former party
allegiance; and among these were several members of the cabinet. Just
as the coalition government of Sir John Macdonald in 1867 became gradually
a predominantly Conservative administration, so the Unionist government
of Sir Robert Borden took on after 1918 a predominantly Conservative
complexion.

It
was the fate of war governments, in virtually all countries, to become,
after the signing of peace, unpopular; and the Unionist government was
no exception to this rule. This was due in part to the unrest in men's
minds after the Great War; but it was also due to the attacks made on
the government almost before the armistice of 1918 was signed. [As well,
it could be argued that the record of the Union government was not as
brilliant as the author of the article believes it to have been.] These
attacks came from two quarters. In the first place, there arose a new
Farmers'
or Progressive
party , which espoused a radical programme formulated by the Canadian
Council of Agriculture in November, 1918; and which actually captured,
in 1919, a majority of seats in the legislature of Ontario . In the
second place, the Liberal party, once the war was over, enjoyed a revival
of strength. On February 17, 1919, Sir Wilfrid Laurier died; and in
the following summer a Liberal convention was held at Ottawa to choose
a new leader and to formulate a programme. The choice of the party fell
on W.
L. Mackenzie King , a comparatively young man, who had been one
of Laurier's most trusted lieutenants; and a programme was adopted which,
while it lacked some of the advanced features of the Progressive platform,
was calculated to make an appeal to those who were dissatisfied with
the moderate and conservative policies of the Unionist government.

Sir
Robert Borden, whose health had been impaired by the strain of the war,
and who had perhaps read the handwriting on the wall, retired to private
life in 1920; and the Unionist government was reorganized under Arthur
Meighen , one of the ablest of his lieutenants. A convention was
held of the supporters of the government; and at this convention the
Unionist party was re-christened ¾
with singular ineptness ¾
"the National Liberal and Conservative
party", in the hope that this name would draw all men under it.
The hope, however, was vain. The Meighen government gave the country
eighteen months of honest and capable administration; but the tide was
setting too strongly against them, and on December 6, 1921, they went
down to a disastrous defeat. The Liberals captured in the new House
117 seats, the Progressives 66, and the Conservatives only 50. Meighen
immediately submitted his resignation to the governor-general; and Mackenzie
King was sent for to form a government.

The
First Mackenzie King Government.

The
Mackenzie
King government had in the House of Commons a bare majority of
one. It enjoyed the general support of the Progressive party; but this
support was uncertain. In these circumstances, it says much for Mackenzie
King's political skill and sagacity that the government survived nearly
four years of office. With such a slender majority, it was not surprising
that the government was not able to pursue a very strong line of policy.
It had to count the immediate political consequences of every step it
took; and, remarkable as its achievement really was, the record of the
government was not perhaps such as to appeal strongly to the electors.
The result was that when the King administration appealed to the country
on October 29, 1925, it suffered a reverse. The Liberal representation
in the House was cut from 117 to 101, and the Progressive representation
from 65 to 24; whereas the Conservatives (as "the National Liberal
and Conservative party" had already come to be known) captured
117 seats, and lacked only one vote of being in a clear majority in
a House of 235 members [the author is in error here. The total number
of Members of Parliament elected in 1925 was 245; the Conservatives
were at least 6 members short of the majority in the House].

It
might be expected that Mackenzie King, who was now only the leader of
the second largest group in the House, would have resigned; but it was
not clear that he had actually lost control of the House, since he would
still be in a majority of one if all the Progressive and Independent
members voted for him. He therefore determined to meet the new House.
Parliament opened on January 7, 1926, consequently; in an atmosphere
of great excitement. Hardly had the address from the throne been read,
however, before it was clear that the Mackenzie King government could
not command. a majority of the House of Commons. Within three days,
it was defeated, because of the defection of two or three Progressives,
by a majority of one. But it was not until June 26. that the government
finally lost control of the House. The prime minister thereupon asked
the governor-general, Lord Byng, to dissolve parliament, and to order
a new election. But this Lord Byng declined to do, believing apparently
that the government, having made one appeal to the country, should not
have the privilege of making another. Over this decision of the governor-general
a bitter controversy [called the King-Byng
affair ], arose. Mackenzie King assailed with great vigor the constitutionality
of the governor-general's attitude; but he was compelled nevertheless
to submit his resignation, and Meighen was invited to form a government.

The
Second Meighen Government.

The
situation that resulted had in it elements of comedy, reminiscent of
the " Double
Shuffle " of 1858. It is [this custom has been abandoned since]
a rule of Canadian political life that members of the House of Commons
when appointed as ministers of the Crown, must resign, and appeal to
their constituents for re-election. As soon as the members of the Meighen
government assumed office, they automatically vacated their seats in
the Commons. In order to carry on, a "shadow cabinet" of acting
ministers was formed; but with the ministers absent from the House,
the Conservatives were in a minority, and on July 2 the new government
was defeated by a majority of one. Thereupon Mr. Meighen asked for a
dissolution; and a new election was held on September 14, 1926. In this
election the Conservatives failed to hold their gains of 1925. The Liberals
captured a total of 118 seats [the number of elected Liberals was in
fact 128], and they were able to count on the support of some of the
Liberal-Progressive, Progressive, United
Farmers of Alberta , Labour, and Independent members elected; so
that they had a substantial majority over the 91 Conservatives returned.

The
Second Mackenzie King Government.

Meighen promptly resigned; and Mackenzie
King formed his second administration. This administration, like that
of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, coincided with one of the most prosperous periods
in the history of Canada , but just before another general election
became due, the Great Depression began in 1929. The government went
to the country in 1930; and for various reasons sustained a decided
defeat. In 1926, Meighen resigned the leader­ ship of the Conservative
party; and at a convention held in Winnipeg in October, 1927, R.
B. Bennett was chosen leader of the party in his place. Bennett
waged a vigorous campaign against the government; and in the elections
held on July 28, 1930, he obtained a clear majority in the House of
Commons. There were returned 136 Conservatives, as against 89 Liberals,
15 Progressives, Liberal-Progressives, and United Farmers, 3 Laborites,
and 2 Independents.

Bennett,
a man of energy and ability, devoted himself as prime minister with
self-sacrificing zeal to endeavouring to solve the problems created
for Canada by the depression; and it is probable that his policies did
much to mitigate its effects. As the general election due in 1935 drew
near, in fact, the depression seemed in some degree to lift [see Bennett's
New Deal]. But at the same time a rift occurred in the Conservative
party. H.
H. Stevens [see this speech
by Stevens at the Empire Club], one of Bennett's chief lieutenants,
broke with his leader over the question of the regulation of "big
business", and formed a separate party known as the Reconstruction
party. The Progressive party had, moreover, in 1932, reorganized itself
as the Co-operative
Commonwealth Federation (see the article about the CCF's
lack of success in Quebec ], with a distinctly socialistic platform;
and the Liberal party, under the expert leadership of Mackenzie King,
who adopted a policy of masterly inaction, was gradually recovering
the ground it had lost. In one province after another the Liberals captured
the control of the government; until they were in power in every province
except Alberta . In these circumstances, the defeat of the Bennett government
was almost a foregone conclusion; and when the votes were counted in
the general election held on October 14; 1935, the Conservatives were
found to have suffered the severest defeat in the history of the party.
They retained only 40 seats in the House; and H. H. Stevens's Reconstruction
party captured only one seat, that of Stevens himself. The new Social
Credit party [see its history
in Alberta ] in Alberta [nearly] swept that province; but the Co-operative
Commonwealth Federation lost ground everywhere. The Liberals rolled
up a representation in the House of Commons of over 170; and on Bennett's
resignation, Mackenzie King embarked on his third period of office as
prime minister.

Bibliography.

There
is as yet no single treatment of the history of political parties in
Canada ; although many general histories of Canada deal mainly with
the political theme. Valuable chapters on political history will be
found in A. Shortt and A. G. Doughty (eds.), Canada and its provinces
(23 vols., Toronto, 1914), and in the Cambridge History of
the British Empire, vol. vi (Cambridge, 1930), and shorter discussions
of Canadian political history will be found in the numerous textbooks
of Canadian history in print, such as C. Wittke, A History of Canada
(New York, 1928; new ed., 1934), W. L. Grant, High school history
of Canada (Toronto, 1914), D. A. McArthur, History of Canada
(Toronto, 1927), W. S. Wallace, A Hi story of the Canadian
people (Toronto, 1930), and J Bingay, A History of Canada for
high schools (Toronto, 1934). Particular periods of political history
are dealt with in R. Christie, History of the late province of Lower
Canada (6 vols., Quebec and Montreal , 1848-55),. C. Dent, The
Story of the Upper Canadian rebellion (2 vols., Toronto , 1884),
and The last forty years: Canada since the union of 1841 (2
vols., Toronto , 1881), and Sir J. S. Willison, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
and the Liberal party (2 vols., Toronto , 1903; new ed., 1926)
- the last a contribution to Canadian political
history of outstanding importance. The serious student of Canadian politics
must go, however, to the biographies of public men, in which Canadian
literature is exceptionally rich. With the exception of Edward Blake,
there is hardly a Canadian politician of the first rank whose life has
not been published. Especial mention may be made of those of William
Lyon Mackenzie, Louis Joseph Papineau, Robert Baldwin, Sir Louis
Lafontaine, Sir Francis Hincks, Joseph Howe, Sir John Macdonald,
George Brown, Sir Oliver Mowat, Sir George
Cartier, D'Arcy McGee, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Leonard Tilley,
Alexander Mackenzie, Sir John Thompson, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Clifford
Sifton, Sir George Foster, and W. L. Mackenzie King. Of especial importance
is Sir Richard Cartwright, Reminiscences

(Toronto
, 1912), though this must be used with discretion. For political history
from 1878 to 1886 the Dominion Annual Register is useful, and from
1900 to the present day the Canadian Annual Review. An interesting
analysis of recent Canadian politics will be found in Escott M. Reid,
Canadian political parties: A study of the economic and racial bases
of Conservatism and Liberalism in 1930 (Toronto, Contributions
to Canadian Economics, vi, 1933); and a recent sketch of Canadian political
history is F. H. Underhill, The development of national parties
in Canada ( Can. hist. rev ., 1935).

Source:
W. Stewart WALLACE, "Political History", in W. Stewart WALLACE, The
Encyclopedia of Canada , Toronto , University Associates of Canada
, 1948, 396p., pp. 175-186. Comments between brackets [.] have been
added by the editor of the site.